Esperanza Investments (Pty) Ltd v Florence Falabo Bennett No And Others (26 of 2021) [2021] SZSC 191 (26 October 2021)

# Esperanza Investments (Pty) Ltd v Florence Falabo Bennett No And Others (26 of 2021) [2021] SZSC 191 (26 October 2021) [ __](https://api.whatsapp.com/send?text=https://eswatinilii.org/akn/sz/judgment/szsc/2021/191/eng@2021-10-26) [ __](https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=https://eswatinilii.org/akn/sz/judgment/szsc/2021/191/eng@2021-10-26) [ __](https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=https://eswatinilii.org/akn/sz/judgment/szsc/2021/191/eng@2021-10-26) [ __](https://www.linkedin.com/sharing/share-offsite/?url=https://eswatinilii.org/akn/sz/judgment/szsc/2021/191/eng@2021-10-26) [ __](mailto:?subject=Take a look at this document from EswatiniLII: Esperanza Investments \(Pty\) Ltd v Florence Falabo …&body=https://eswatinilii.org/akn/sz/judgment/szsc/2021/191/eng@2021-10-26) [ Download DOC (114.3 KB) ](/akn/sz/judgment/szsc/2021/191/eng@2021-10-26/source) Toggle dropdown * [Download PDF](/akn/sz/judgment/szsc/2021/191/eng@2021-10-26/source.pdf) Report a problem __ * Share * [ Download DOC (114.3 KB) ](/akn/sz/judgment/szsc/2021/191/eng@2021-10-26/source) * [Download PDF](/akn/sz/judgment/szsc/2021/191/eng@2021-10-26/source.pdf) * * * * * Report a problem __ ##### Esperanza Investments (Pty) Ltd v Florence Falabo Bennett No And Others (26 of 2021) [2021] SZSC 191 (26 October 2021) Copy citation * __Document detail * __Related documents Citation Esperanza Investments (Pty) Ltd v Florence Falabo Bennett No And Others (26 of 2021) [2021] SZSC 191 (26 October 2021) Copy Media Neutral Citation [2021] SZSC 191 Copy Court [Supreme Court of eSwatini](/judgments/SZSC/) Case number 26 of 2021 Judges [Dlamini JA](/judgments/all/?judges=Dlamini%20JA), [Hlophe JA](/judgments/all/?judges=Hlophe%20JA), [Currie AJA](/judgments/all/?judges=Currie%20AJA) Judgment date 26 October 2021 Language English Court Roll [Download PDF](/akn/sz/judgment/szsc/2021/191/eng@2021-10-26/attachment/esperanza-investments-pty-ltd-v-florence-falabo-bennett-no-and-others-2021-szsc-191-26-october-2021.pdf) (560.8 KB) * * * Skip to document content IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ESWATINI HELD AT MBABANE CASE NO.26/2021 In the matter between: ESPERANZA INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD Appellant And FLORENCE FALABO BENNETT N. 0. EUNINCE BENNETT N. 0. PUMA ENEHGY ESWATINI (PTY) LTD THE NATIONAL COMMISSIONER OF THE ROYAL ESWATINI POLICE SERVICES (MANZINI DISTRICT) N. 0. THE ATTORENY GENERAL First Respondent Second Respondent Third Respondent Fourth Respondent Fifth Respondent **Neutral** **Citation:**_Esperanza investments (Pty) Ltd vs Florence_ ___Falabo_ _Bennett N.O. and Four Others (26/2021)_[2021] **SZSC** 19 (26th October 2021) **Coram:****M.J.** **DLAMINI JA,** **N.J.** **HLOPHE JA AND** **J.M. CURRIE AJA.** **Date Heard** **Date Handed Down** **25****th** **August 2021** **26****th****October 2021** __**Summary**__ _Appeal_ __ - _Lease_ __ - _Renewal_ ___of_ ___lease_ __ - _Effect_ ___of_ ___no_ ___agreement_ ___on_ ___fixed_ ___rental for a renewed lease_ \- _Whether a lease can be taken to be renewed in instances_ ___where_ ___there_ ___was_ ___no_ ___agreement_ ___on_ ___the_ ___amount_ ___of_ ___the_ ___rental/or_ ___the option_ ___period_ __ - _Lis_ ___pendens_ __ - _Nature_ ___of_ ___plea_ ___of_ ___!is_ ___pendens_ ___and_ ___when_ ___same is applicable_ \- _Whether principle applicable in the present matter_ \- _Right of retention or lien raised as an objection to the eviction_ \- _Evidence and circumstances met to establish right of retention or lien tenuous and/or nebulous_ ___so_ ___as_ ___not_ ___to_ ___pass_ ___the_ ___test/or_ ___the_ ___establishment_ ___of_ ___the_ ___said_ ___right_ ___on a balance of_ ___probabilities._ **.JUDGEMENT** **HLOPHEJA** (1J This is an appeal against a judgn1ent of the High Court per Mlangeni J in which he had granted an order ejecting or evicting the Appellant from its occupation of ce1iain business premises which had hitherto been leased to it situated at the Luve Business Center and comprising a shop and a Filling Station. 2. It is not in dispute that the Appellant came to occupy the pren1ises in question pursuant to a lease agreement it concluded with the executrix of the estate of the late owner of the premises one Gregory Bennett. The executrix in the estate concerned is the First Respondent herein. The initial period of the said lease was five (5) years, with an option to renew. The said period (initial) was to run from the 1st April 2016 to 31st March 2021. Thereafter the lessee had an option to renew the lease for a period of three years. The dispute in the 1natter is over the purported exercise of that option by the lessee. 2. The renewal clause of the agree111ent in question was couched in the following tenns: - __"3. Options__ 1. _The_ ___tenant shall_ ___have_ ___an_ ___option_ ___to_ ___renew_ ___the_ ___lease_ ___of the premises for a further period of three (3) years from the termination of the initial_ ___period._ 2. _The tenant shall exercise the option by written_ ___notice to the Landlord not less than two (2) months prior to the expiry of the initial period. Such notice shall be given to the Landlord at its domicilium citandi et executandi, for the_ ___time·being._ 3. _The option shall be upon the same terms and conditions as are set out herein, save that there shall be no further option to_ ___renew._ 4. _ff_ _the Tenant does not exercise any option as provided in this clause, then its right to do so shall_ ___lapse._ 2. Clauses 4.1 and 4.2 of the lease which although relating to rental, also impact on the question of renewal of the same lease agreement in law, are couched in the following terms: - _"4.___Rental__ 1. _The monthly rental payable by the Tenant to the Landlord shall be El 5 000.00 (Fifteen Thousand Emalangeni) per month during the initial_ ___period._ 2. _The rental to be paid by the tenant to the_ ___Landlord_ __during the option period shall be the amount agreed__ __upon between__ ______the__ ______parties, provided that if they__ ______are__ __unable to agree one month before the co111111ence111ent__ __of the option period concerned the Tenant shall be__ __deemed not to have exercised the option"____(underlining added). 2. There cannot possibly be a dispute that owing to the special relationship that exists in law between the renewal of a lease and the rental amount applicable, the clause on the options available to the lessee (which includes the renewal of the lease) has to be read together with that on the rentals. These are clauses 3 and 4 in the lease under consideration herein. Otherwise the position of our law is now settled that the renewal of a lease agreement amounts to the conclusion of a new lease. 2. That being the case, a rental relating to the option period has to be agreed upon before one can talk of a renewal of a lease agree1nent. This is because in law there can be no lease agreement without an agreement on the rental amount. A rental is one of the essential elen1ents of a lease agree1nent. In other words without a rental amount having been fixed and or agreed upon, one cannot talk of a lease agreement. See **W.E.** **Cooper,** **The** **South** **African** **Law** **of** **Landlord and Tenant, 2****nd****Edition, Juta and Company, page 345; R V Mohamed 1924 NPD 407 at 409** as well as **BLP Investments V Angels'** **Precision Works 1987** **(4)** **SA** **308** **at** **311** **B** on the effect of renewal on a lease agreement. On the effect of the absence of an agreement on rent payable in a lease, see **Biden** **Properties****V** **Wilson 1946** **NPD** **736** **at** **739** and also **SA** **Reserve** **Bank** **V** **Photocraft** **1969** **(1) SA 610****(c)****at 612.** 2. The facts before the Court _a quo_ revealed that whilst the term of the lease agreement was meant to end on the 31st March 2021, the First Respondent, on the 11th January 2021, sent a letter by registered mail to the Appellant. By means of the said letter, the First Respondent sought to notify the Appellant that when the term of the lease can1e to an end, she was not going to renew it. First Respondent referred to that notice as one of cancellation or non-renewal. This notice was not provided for in the lease agreen1ent. 2. I 111ust add that the Court _a quo_ correctly found that the said notice was of no force or effect and set it aside. None of the parties challenged this aspect of the 1natter. For the sake of completeness, that purported notice of cancellation or non-renewal by the First Respondent had, as stated above, been issued outside the lease agreen1ent. It ignored the fact that the lease agreement had granted the lessee (Appellant), an option to renew the lease provided it met ce1iain conditions, one of which was an agreement on the rental amount within a specified period before the expiry date of the lease. 2. Ignoring the notice found by the Court _a quo_ to be of no force or effect, the Appellant, on the 22nd January 2021 and whilst acting through its attorneys, issued its own notice to the First Respondent, in which it advised of its decision to exercise the option to renew the lease agreement availed it by clause 3.2 of the lease agreernenl. Perhaps because of the fact that the lease agreement had, in terms of clause 4.2, provided that the rental amount for the option period of the lease had to be agreed upon between the parties and that if they were unable to agree on same, at least one month before the comn1ence1nent of the option period, the tenant was to be deemed not to have exercised the said option, the Appellant requested in the same letter a meeting to discuss the issue of the renewal of the lease agreement. I say this was "perhaps" the motivation for the request to meet because the letter on its face did not say what exactly was to be discussed in the requested meeting. 2. One does not hear of any effort taken particularly by the First Respondent to meet the Appellant. What one sees from the facts of the matter is that when First Respondent issued the notice of cancellation or non-renewal of the lease agreement subsequently found to be of no force or effect by the Court _a quo,_ it had advised that one of its motivating factors for the non-renewal or supposed cancellation of the lease agreen1ent was the fact that it intended to construct a 111odern shopping 111all or complex on the saine site where the premises forn1ing the subject of the lease under consideration herein were situated. Indeed, drawings for the intended develop111ent including an environmental impact and assessment repo1i for the development concerned were annexed to the papers filed of record in the Cou1t _a_ ___quo._ 2. The Court _a quo_ came to the conclusion that although the Appellant was legally entitled to exercise the option to renew, and that it had indeed purported to do so, it however did not follow that the renewal of the lease agreement had taken effect. The Court explained that for the renewal to be found to have taken effect, there had to be an agreen1ent on the rent payable during the option period. This agreement was not there; which means that the purported exercise of the option to renew was of no force or effect. 2. Mlangeni J eloquently stated the position when he said the following at paragraphs 23 to 27 of the Court _a_ _quo's_ judgn1ent: - _"23. At the heart of this matter is the question whether or not there is a valid lease agreement that obtains between the parties at this point in time. If there isn't, the First Respondent stands to be evicted from the premises unless it advances other legitimate grounds to remain in the premises. It is common cause that the tenant has an option to renew the lease for a further period of three years. I have already held that the Landlord's letter of the 1_ _JI"__January 2021 is inconsequential. It remains to ask this question; what is the legal effect of the tenant's letter dated_ ___22_ _nd_ _January 2021? Does it create a valid lease agreement between the parties?_ 24. _A poignant answer is zn the judgment in_ _**Bobcar Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Hla(iwayo 1982- 1986 SLR 226-227.**__The head note expresses the position in a manner that is as clear as a crystal, and I quote it below:-_ _**"An option to renew a lease which does not specify the rent but stipulates that the lease will be renewable**_ ___**at**_ ___**a**_ ___**rent**_ ___**to**_ ___**be**_ ___**111utually**_ ___**agreed**_ ___**upon,**____**will not**_ ___**result**_ ___**in**_ ___**a**_ ___**lease**_ ___**because**_ ___**agree111ent**_ ___**on**_ ___**rent**_ ___**is**_ ___**an essential element of a lease and until agree1nent has been reached on it, no lease is concluded.**___ " 24. _Quoting from the writings of WE Cooper in his book_ _**'South African Law of Landlord and Tenant, Dunn J,**____as_ ___he_ ___then_ ___was, observed_ ___that_ ___an_ ___option_ ___to_ ___renew_ ___a lease must contain the essential elements of a_ ___lease_ _"so that_ _if_ _the lessee exercises the option a lease_ _is_ _concluded"__**(See paragraph C of' the Bobcar Holdings (Pty) Ltd judg111ent at page**_ _**227).**__This position_ ___is_ ___echoed_ ___by_ ___Hlophe_ ___Jin_ ___the_ ___more_ ___recent_ ___case_ _of_ ___**Mikka**_ ___**Swaziland**_ ___**(Pty)**____**Ltd**_ ___**v**_ ___**Tho111as**_ ___**I11vest111ents Corporation (Pty) Ltd**_ _**(594/16) [2016]**__**SZHC**_ ___**126.**_ 26. _The effect of the above is clear. In the absence of an agreement on the rental amount there is no lease agreement. In its letter dated_ _22_ _nd_ _January 2021 the First Respondent requested a meeting with the landlord, presumably to discuss rental and possibly other_ ___things.____The_ ___meeting_ ___did_ ___not_ ___happen_ ___and_ ___has_ ___still not happened At page 409_ \- _412 of the book of pleadings there is correspondence between the parties which demonstrates the extent of polarization between_ ___them,____a_ ___sure_ ___sign_ ___that_ ___there_ ___is_ ___no_ ___prospect_ ___of an agreement that would create a_ ___lease._ 27. _The First Respondent argues that an agreement over rental was thwarted by_ ___the_ ___Landlord's purported cancellation of the option. That may be so. But thefact of the matter is that an agreement can only result_fi"om the voluntary actions of the contracting parties. In this case the parties have not agreed on the amount of rental. I therefore come to the conclusion that the First Respondent's purported renewal per the letter dated 22_ _nd_ _January 2021 is inconsequential just like that of the Landlord which was posted on the I_ _J_ _th_ ___January 2021. The result of this_ _i_ _9_ _that there is no lease agreement between them. In the absence of some other basis upon which the right of occupation may be claimed, the First respondent is liable to be evicted fi'om the premises.___ " 2. Before discussing what the Appellant's reaction is to the foregoing aspect of the matter including what I find to be the applicable position of the law in such a situation, I need to point out that it was not the only aspect on which the eviction there sought was being challenged, including the grounds to which the appeal argued before us extended to as well. This other aspect relied upon by the Appellant there and now is the contention that it had a right of retention of the premises against the First Respondent as the landlord arising from an unpaid debt it had against the Appellant. This is also known as a right of lien. 2. This debt upon which a right of a lien is being clahned is said to amount to a sum of E2 155 460-00. It allegedly arises from renovations and repairs allegedly carried out on the same premises by the Appellant. It is in that sense an illiquid claim. At the heaii of the Appellant's contention is that it should be allowed to re1nain in the pren1ises in question until what was allegedly owed to it was paid. It is worth noting that on the date that the said lease terminated, the 31st March 2021, the Appellant issued out a summons claiming the extent of the outstanding a111ount allegedly owed it by the First Respondent. This is under Case No. 620/2021. It appears that this 111atter is still pending before the Court _a quo_ awaiting detern1ination. 2. The Court _a quo_ did not accept that the Appellant had established a lien or the right of retention against the First Respondent, stating _inter alia_ that the foundations of the right of lien were shaky. It said that same was hanging on a thread. It found further that some aspects of the lien claimed appeared to be contrary to the law and the lease agreement. In Justice Mlangeni's own words, the position was stated as follows from paragraphs 29 to 31: - _"29:____._.. _it_ ___appears_ ___to_ ___me_ ___to_ ___be_ ___axiomatic_ ___that_ ___the_ ___party_ ___who claims_ ___a_ ___lien_ ___must_ ___substantiate_ ___the_ ___claim_ ___on_ ___a_ ___balance of_ ___probabilities._ 30. _This_ ___lien_ ___that_ ___the_ ___First_ ___Respondent_ ___claims_ ___hangs_ ___on_ ___a thread,____at_ ___best.____I_ ___say_ ___this_ ___for_ ___the_ ___reasons_ ___that_ ___follow._ _30.__J_ _The Lease agreement that is the main subject of this litigation was entered into on the_ _2?__11_ ___January 2016. it has express provisions that do not envisage that the landlord can carry expenses for alterations, structural or otherwise. It also provides that in the absence of the prior written consent of the landlord such can only be done "at the tenant's costs under the supervision and control of the landlord_.... _The fees of any architect employed by the landlord shall be borne and paid by the tenant" (see clause_ ___14.1)._ 2. _In terms of clause 13.1 the First Respondent accepted that the premises were in good condition upon occupation, and the interior thereof was to be maintained by it at its own expense. (See clause_ ___13.2)_ 3. _Clause 24.2 provides that_ __"the lease__ ______previouslv__ __signed by the parties on the__ __24__ __th__ ____August 2008__ ______is__ __hereby cancelled".___That lease is between the present lessor and a company registered as Daryali Investments (Pty) Ltd I need not go into the difference in name of the tenant in that lease and that of the tenant in the lease that is the subject of this litigation, but it does have legal implications.____I_ ___make_ ___the_ ___passing_ ___observation_ ___that the_ ___averment_ ___by_ ___the_ ___First_ ___Respondent's_ ___deponent Shadat Hussein at paragraph I 9 of the answering affidavit that Daryali Investments (Pty) Ltd was never a tenant of the First Applicant_ ___is_ ___preposterous.____The_ ___front_ ___cover_ ___of_ ___the Lease agreement "BGB9" in block letters, and the person who singed on its behalf is one Arif Urmaji. If Urmaji pwported to contract_ ___on_ _behalf of a non- existent entity, as averred by_ _l\/Jichael_ ___Steenkamp_ ___in_ ___his_ ___co11firmatory_ ___Affidavit in support of the First Respondent, that says a lot about the manner in which Urmaji does business and those who deal with him better beware._(underlining added). 2. _Annexure_ ___"BGB8"____which_ ___is_ ___at_ ___page_ ___109_ ___to_ ___112 of the book of pleadings is between· the present lessor and one Urmaji. That lease was for one year, effective 1'__1_ _August 2006 to 31_ _st_ _July 2007. In_ ___that_ ___agreement_ ___the_ ___lease_ ___was_ ___in_ ___respect_ ___of_ ___the Filling Station, which was leased_ ___as_ __"Voetstoots"___with_ __"no warranties regarding the__ __upgrading conditions or otherwise.___See clause 3"_(underlining has been added). 2. _The issues canvassed in paragraph 30 above demonstrated in my view that [the} First Respondent's claim of the lien for_ ___renovations_ _and or improvements is nothing short of stratagem. To this 1 add the legal position which is settled, that any claim by the tenant for repairs and or renovations arises at the end of the lease period.__**(See BOBCAR HOLDINGS (Pty) Ltd V HLATSHWAYO,**__(supra). Between the year 2006 and 2021 there has been at least four lease agreements over the premises, ranging in durationfi•om one year to five years. If there was substance in the First Respondent's claim it does not make sense that throughout this long period of time it was not pursued and I cannot ignore the fact that this was not at all mentioned in the_ _Fris_ _t_ _____Respondent'__s_ _____lette_ _r_ _____dated_ _____2_ _2_ _1_ _1_ _d_ _____January_ _2021 when there was ample indication that the business relationship was_ ___ending._ 30. _On the basis of the foregoing I_ ___find that the First Respondent's claim for a lien on the premises has no legal_ ___basis._ 2. The Appellant also sought to contend that the Court _a quo_ had erroneously ignored its point on the plea of _!is pendens_ it had raised or words to that effect. Although the Cou1i _a_ ___quo_ __ does not appear to have dealt with this paiiicular point in any detail, it is a fact that same was argued in detail before us particularly by the Appellant's Counsel. The reality is that the proceedings that resulted in the conception of this paiiicular claim were filed on the last day of the lease after the First Respondent had already advised it was bringing proceedings to have the Appellant ejected on the grounds that there was no agreement to remain in those premises in so far as the lease agreement had not been renewed, owing to there being no agree1nent on the a1' 11ount of the rental payable. I will deal in detail shortly with this aspect although I have here alluded to 1ny decision on it. 2. It suffices for now to say that the filing of the said action had all the halln1arks of a stratagen1 to gain ti1ne by the Appellant with no realistic merit in it. I say this because the central question to that action having the effect of deciding the matter once and for all is one of law namely whether in the absence of a rental amount agreed upon there could in law be a renewal of a lease. Placing reliance on a long line of cases as alluded to above, the Cou1i _a quo_ came to the conclusion that there was no such agreement; necessitating in the process that the Appellant be evicted or ejected from the pre1nises in question. If the matter turned on such a crisp point of law, one wonders therefore why the matter would have had to be brought to Cou1i by way of action proceedings and have the crisp issue of law subjected to trial as the Appellant suggests. The application was about a determination of that point and the Appellant had every opportunity to deal with whatever aspect ofit he wanted to raise during the hearing of the application. There would have been no merit in having that crisp point made lo await an unwarranted future trial. The reliance on the plea of _!is pendens_ does not seen1 to be genuine therefore. The raising of it was apparently 1nore about buying tin1e in these circmnstances and the Court _a quo_ was correct in not upholding it. 2. The Cou1i _a quo_ ought to be commended for speedily dealing with a matter that on the face of it needed a quick decision and in the process to discourage points that are taken with no prospect of success being pursued than they being calculated to abuse the Court process and delay the finalization of matters. 2. On the central question of the effect of a failure to conclude an agreement on the rental prior to a renewal, the position of our law as alluded to above is crisp and has been a subject of numerous judg1nents. It is that because a rental is an essential ele1nent of a lease agreement, failure to agree on same will result in a purported exercise of a renewal clause being rendered an exercise in futility. That the agreement talks of the parties having to agree on the rental amount before the renewal of the lease agreement 111akes it difficult to reach a different conclusion to that reached by Mlangeni J in the Court _a quo._ 2. I agree that no renewal of a lease agreement can occur in law if no rental amount had been agreed upon. It has been found that such a clause if effected in the manner the Appellant suggests the Court that seeks to enforce it would be interfering with the parties' right to agree or disagree on material issues of the lease. Further still, the conclusion reached by Judge Mlangeni on whether or not there had been concluded a lease agreement cannot be faulted because the Judgments relied upon by him captured the correct position of our law as expressed in numerous Judgments . These include the **Bobcar Holdings (Pty) Ltd V Hlatshwayo 1982-86 vol. 1 SLR 226-227, Mikka Swaziland (Pty) Ltd V Thomas Investments Corporation (Pty)** **Ltd** **(594/2016)** **(2016]** **SZHC_l26** as well as that of **Rozar** **CC** **V The Falls Supermarket (232/2017).ZASCA 166** we were referred to by Appellant's Counsel. 2. Of course the **Rozar CC V The Falls Supermarket**(supra) judge1nent introduces an aspect that it should also depend on whether the clause of the lease agreement relied upon does talk of a 3rd party being granted power to resolve a dispute with regards the rental a1nount. It suggests that if it does give such a third party the power to determine the dispute surrounding the amount of the rental, then the party relying on that clause can enforce it. 2. The point is that the position envisaged in such cases as **Rozar CC V The Falls Supermarket (supra)** and **Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd V Everfresh Mark Virginia case no. 6675/09** to the effect that there would be a duty on a lessee where there is envisaged a resolution of a dispute by a 3rd pmiy, does not arise herein and I do not have to decide a theoretical question. 2. What is certain, with which I cannot fault the Court _a quo_ is that the lease agreen1ent in this n1atter was not renewed and since that was the position, the Appellant has no protection to re1nain in the said pren1ises, hence the order that it be evicted or ejected therefro111 is appropriate in the circumstances of the matter. 2. On the issue of the Appellant's alleged right of lien or retention, I have to agree with the conclusion the Court _a quo_ came to. It is a fact that for it to find that there ever was such a right, it should be because the facts of the matter do establish it. In other words it should be because such a finding has to be made on a balance of probabilities. On the facts and circumstances of the matter, the Court _a quo_ was conect in finding that a case proving that a lien or right of retention had not been made on the balance of the probabilities. I agree with the order the Court _a quo_ 1nade in this regard. l25] Consequenily and taking into account the foregoing considerations, I have come to the conclusion that the Appellant's Appeal cannot succeed. 26. Accordingly I 111ak:e the following order:- [ I] The Appellant's Appeal be and is hereby dis111issed. 2. The Appellant and those holding under it be and are hereby ejected and evicted from the premises known as Luve Filling Station and Supermarket with immediate effect. In order to give effect to an orderly exit from the said premises the execution of this order shall be stayed for a period of 7 calendar days from the date of service of this order upon the Appellant. 2. The Appellant be and is hereby ordered to pay the costs of the Appeal. JUSTICE OF APPEAL _t/_ I Agree __**/**______**,AMINNI**__ ____ 'JUSTICE OF APPEAL I Agree __!4__ ____1__ _°_ ___r_ M.J. CURRIE ACTING JUSTICE OF APPEAL For the Appellant For the 181 Respondent Nkomondze Attorneys S.V. Mdladla 1 #### __Related documents ▲ To the top >